Goodness (was Re: [Advaita-l] 'End' not 'Means')

[Aditya Varun Chadha]

> The original poster claimed to *disprove* the Vedic way using
> pratyaksha, without realizing that even the utilitarian theory does
> not come fully from pratyaksha, but is derived by **assuming** that
> all good arises from pleasure and material well-being.

1. It is yet to be shown that denying women/shudras the right to read
the vedas is the "Vedic way". The vedic way is defined by Sruti.

2. Yes, the Vedic way cannot be disproved through pratyakSa and
anumAna. This is why (if you wish to respond, please do so after
reading through the entire thing):

One performs a vedic yagya prescribed for the birth of a son. Upon
performing it with conviction in the exact prescribed way, the result
is not forthcoming. So one performs it again, each time taking care no
mistakes are made. Still, no son.

Should one question the utility of the yagya? NO, because there is
apratyakSa karma to factor in. So one asks a Yogi to make one's past
lives and thus apratyakSa karma pratyakSa. Subsequently does
prayaSchita to anull the bad karma as made pratyakSa. Yagya. Still no
son. should one question? NO. Because the Yogi may not have shown you
all your past karma. So you have to go to a jIvanmukta (equivalent to
Ishvara). But he doesn't tell you anything. Why? He doesn't care about
these "petty things" any more.

Now, another tries controlled artificial fertilization combining the x
and y chromosomes. son is born. No yagya. Should one question the
utility of the yagya? NO. because there may be past good karma to
factor in. In comes the Yogi. Shows one his past lives. all lives
badly lived (atleast not enough good karma to get a son), no yagya
performed in any past life. Should one doubt the utility of the yagya?
NO. again, all karma might not have been seen or understood.
jIvanmukta is not going to help (indifference to mAyA like son
births).

Say 9999 out of 10000 times, controlled fertilization works. studies
are made in which random people (not performing any yagyas) are taken,
and son births are recorded, also yagya performing people are taken,
son births are recorded. success ratio MUCH less (say 48/100) and same
in both cases (in both cases, no controlled fertilization). Should one
question the utility of the yagya? NO. because "you are only assuming
what caused what", whatever you SEE is contingent on your senses, you
can't trust your senses (you can't prove they are trustworthy, so
follow the vedas). Keep performing the yagyas.

Yes, one cannot question the Vedas on the basis of pratyakSa. Why?
because you only **assume** that "what we
see/hear/touch/smell/taste/reason is pratyakSa". Your "Observation"
that x and y chromosomes are responsible for sons and not yagyas is
not really an "Observation" you see, it is merely an assumption that
if A SEEMS to cause B EVERY TIME you do the experiment, the A must be
causing B, because if what seems to you is different from what the
Vedas tell you, it is an illusion and is temporary. Don't believe in
what you see. Just believe that the vedas are apaurusheya and anything
apaurusheya must hold authority over anything that is paurusheya.

We assume the vedas are always correct. The vedas allow for pratyakSa,
but NOT pertaining to the issues that the vedas themselves address. To
any common person pratyakSa exists that sometimes contradicts the
vedas (above example), but ofcourse! that person is mistaken! why?
because vedas allow for the believer to DEFINE what pratyakSa is and
what it is not.

So yes, in the face of such brilliant reasoning and staunch adherence,
I stand defeated.
__________

If such is the stand, then there is no pratyakSa at all. remove it
from your dictionaries folks, because
1. pratyakSa can only work outside the realm of the vedas. (the vedas
say so by introducing apratyakSa karma)
2. even outside the realm of vedas, pratyakSa is not really pratyakSa,
because all this is mAyA right? what seems might not be, what doesn't
seem might be, who knows? (the vedas say so by introducing mAyA and
all observation as mAyA (unreal)).

karma and mAyA (one apratyakSa, second unrealness of reality) together
completely deny any jurisdiction to pratyakSa. not only does pratyakSa
not have jurisdiction, pratyakSa by definition (vedic) itself doesn't
exist.

So the vedas are not subject to pratyakSa because the vedas deny
pratyakSa (via apratyakSa karma and mAyA). I see circularity.
______

IF i ever wanted a son (and couldn't have one on my own), i'd go to
the clinic. I'll categorically state that doing yagya for a son or
rain is superstition. Any theory has value only as a predictive tool.
that's how one evaluates a theory. but ofcourse, no way of evaluating
vedic theory, because vedas say all prediction is mental and anything
mental is mAyA.

Does that make me NOT an advaitin? According to your BELIEF (and
NOTHING else), yes. (an Advaitin has to be an Astika first, believer
of Vedic infallibility).

But I keep calling myself advaitin. Why? because I derive the same
metaphysics from my own assumptions. even though from those very
assumptions I derive an ethics VERY different from that of the vedic
tradition. advaita is a school of metaphysics, NOT of ethics. and
therefore one can be an advaitin without adhering to vedic ethics. so
much for vedic authority over advaita.

I say vedas are WRONG in many places. I assume so (no burden of proof
on me). You can't prove me wrong (try if you like). advaita can be
derived without the vedas, so stop taking a holier than thou
perspective on women and vedas on a list about advaita.

--
Aditya Varun Chadha | http://www.adichad.com | +91 9840076411 (M)
Room#1024, Cauvery Hostel | IIT Madras | Chennai - 600036 | India